We're under attack- it's starting here

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_re/us_rel_home_school_evolution#mwpphu-container

 

It's also on the Fox News site. IMO, we're not under attack; we're being challenged for teaching scientific error. Before I read your message, I posted some thoughts about the article here.

 

I will teach evolution. This is how I was taught, whether I believe different of not is not the point. It is important to teach IMO, we need to know all sides of all stories right?

 

I teach both sides. I feel it's important that he's prepared when he steps out to the college world.

 

My point in the post is that in the last two months we've seen article after article taking shots at homeschooling. This is just the latest. It's in preparation for pushing the CRC. Don't let small issues divide. This is an anti-homeschool article that quotes wrong statistics and makes some sweeping generalizations.

 

I really don't think there are two sides here. My daughter will learn that parts of evolutionary theory, namely micro-evolution, is fact. There is scientific evidence to prove adaptation of species and even survival of the fittest. Macro evolution, however, is just one theory of many as to how the universe came into being. As a Christian, my daughter is learning that God created the earth. So, I think that evolution and Creationism can coexist.

 

Just to clarify (as I did in the other thread): Evolution explains how complex life forms emerged from simple life forms. It says nothing about how life started. It says nothing about how the universe came into being. These are different topics.

I agree with most of the sentiments expressed here: We should teach our children with an open mind and not exclude subjects with which we happen to disagree. Excluding the teaching of evolution is, in many respects, like excluding the teaching of calculus or history. We may not agree with a commentator's view of Thomas Jefferson, for example, but that's no reason for excluding history or that particular person's viewpoint. We learn best when we know all the facts. When facts are excluded, just like when the government withholds information, we become suspicious and lose trust.

By avoiding evolution (or any other subject), children eventually reach the stage (often at university) when they wonder why it was avoided. Natural inquisition means they'll want to find out. Personally, I'd rather my children ask questions when I'm around to answer and not when someone with an alien worldview is doing the explaining.

 

However, (as I pointed out in that same thread) the theory of evolution is dependent on the theory of how life started. How the universe came into being is the foundation of how and why evolution could have taken place...so they are closely related.

 

Cornish Steve, You are correct that evolution itself says nothing about the beginnings of the universe. However, evolutionists have adopted theories about how life on earth began.

 

Am I missing something? I didn't feel it was anti-homeschool?

 

For sure, some science philosophers link these subjects together, but scientifically they are quite distinct. Evolution is backed up by a lot of compelling evidence. Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and evangelical Christian, has provided many examples of this in his writings. On the other hand, abiogenesis (the study of how life started in the first place) is much more about models and assumptions and, quite frankly, guesswork.

I find cosmology the most interesting because my early degrees were in physics. Recent experiments and theories are quite fascinating and fit nicely with what you'd expect of a creative God. Space itself, not just the matter in it, exploded into existence in virtually an instant. Once the process was started, everything fell into place over huge distances and time frames. Frankly, I can't wait for the day when we get to look back at our space-time fabric and see how incredible was the process.

There's really nothing to be afraid of with any field of science. We can teach all the details with excitement and awe while still resisting the philosophical meanderings of some of the more naturalistic authors. The more I've learned about modern science, the more I see the detailed work of an incredibly creative and intimate being who wants us to enjoy learning about his world. There's really no need to run from reality. The world is as it is, and it's magnificent.

Which is why I worry so much about this. If we do things to ignite the ire of government and the majority of the population, that joy of learning about the creator will be sucked out of the curriculum - not just in science but in everything. Why make such a big issue out of this one thing and risk educational control over the entire the process?

 

although the article itself wasn't anti homeschool...it was a negative view of homeschool texts and of "evangelical Christians"
We explore evolution and creation. I point out that like Job, there are many things we do not understand.
I also explain that maybe parts of "evolution" are not part of our revalation.
That doesn't mean that everything scientist say about God is true, or that what Christians say about science is true.

But I do think that the comments were almost exclusively anti homeschooling and that is troubling...as we grow as a group we become a threat...and threats are dealt with.

 

Steve,
Quite often I agree with you. However, I will not change what I teach, nor what I believe to try and avoid "igniting the ire" of the powerful. I will do the right thing. (as far as I can) and trust God to make it for good. The fact that we (homeschoolers) are now a force, a growing force. For freedom and the individuality that our country was founded on. It is not popular...because it is hard to boss around individuals.

 

Just to be clear: I would never suggest that anyone change what they believe.

I've been thinking more about the whole topic today, and maybe I can explain why I feel the way I do by way of anecdote.

A couple of years ago, a gentleman asked to speak at our midweek church meeting. He was a traveling speaker of some sort, very familiar with the Grand Canyon, using his knowledge to explain how the canyon can be explained by a universal flood. I was fascinated to hear and enjoyed the start of his talk. After a while, though, he wandered off the topic and started tearing apart evolution and an ancient earth history, quoting extensively from material I read two or more decades ago and making some rather obviously naive statements.

After his talk, I asked him several questions. I put them respectfully, and he answered them graciously, often stating that he simply didn't know the answer (which, by the way, is often the sign of a genuine and honest scientist). While I felt that some of his views were mistaken, I very much liked the guy. His heart was in the right place, and he was teachable.

When the whole session was over, however, someone else from his entourage started to mingle. The word that best describes him is 'minder', even 'bully'. There was no openness or teachable spirit here. He was the enforcer. Anyone who didn't accept his literal view of creation, or write off evolution, was a heretic. After making clear his disdain for my questions, out came the phrase so often heard on occasions like this - "I'll pray for you": a holier-than-thou, less-than-subtle, and wholly unwarranted jab.

This, of course, isn't my only brush with this new orthodoxy. Speaking with a person who runs several homeschool expos around the country, I learned that many such events allow only exhibitors who sign a pledge of support for literal creationism and dismiss evolution as evil. If you won't sign the form, you can't exhibit. Why? Who gives them this right? This is like something out of the Middle Ages. From what I've learned of the American psyche after living here for over two decades, the stifling of opinion and thought in this way is very unAmerican.

Incidents of this type undoubtedly color my thinking. This bullying enforcement of someone's view of orthodoxy is worrying. It's not just about science; it's also about politics and other aspects of life. Are we all expected to fall in line? Do we suspend rational thought and genuine faith (and the bible's actual words!) and simply accept what we're told - through popular books, radio and TV programs, and the like? Luther fought against mistaken orthodoxy, and so did Calvin and others. In the same spirit, we should challenge it now.

This trend to enforce a certain "Christian" view on us all will antagonize others (and I put "Christian" in quotes because I maintain that the new orthodoxy being foisted on us is quite unbiblical). It's often wise to stay below the radar (and several NT passages call on us to have such an attitude) so we can enjoy our freedoms without ruffling feathers. That's not in any way compromising belief: It's simply avoiding unnecessary public attention.

"Discretion is the better part of valor."

 

How much of history has been changed, modified, removed, rewritten, so that some truths can never be recovered and all just to please the reigning regime? There was an absolute truth, but we can only speculate on some of it based on the evidence. It is the same with science. It is too politically driven to be pure and absolute.

Science cannot be based in truth when it does not even acknowledge the Author of Truth.

 

We could ask this from the other side. Why do "they" care what we teach our children about ONE scientific theory? Will our children be poor citizen because they do not believe all that the theory of evolution claims? Will they be unable to hold down a job? I personally know five doctors who do not believe in evolution (the part where lower life forms evolved over millions of years into humans). Despite their belief in a young earth, they made it through med school and have successful practices. I am not hurting my children by using curriculum that teaches the weaknesses of evolution as a theory and offers other plausible explanations for the same evidence. It seems to me that the article was simply written to mock those simpeltons who would teach "creation mythology" to their children and to imply the children are being harmed by these deniers-of-truth. :roll:

 

Confirmation bias!

When I was at university years ago, it was an interesting fact that more members of the Christian Union were from the sciences than from the arts. Christians have always influenced mainstream science. Francis Collins is perhaps the most visible in America, because he's been the head of the human genome project and he's published some interesting and popular books, but there are plenty of others. Science is not the exclusive domain of anti-Christian sentiment; far from it. Among the greatest scientists in history are Newton, Pascal, Rutherford, Dalton, Faraday, and Maxwell - all very sincere Christians.

I do get your point, though. Today's 'popular science' is being hijacked by Richard Dawkins and others of his type, and they are virulent atheists. Few Christians are standing up to him, which is lamentable. In his books, he makes it clear that he sees himself as an evangelist against our faith. Of course, Dawkins is a huge proponent of evolution, and the temptation is to react against evolution because of this - but that would be a mistake. Our faith is about the one unique person who died and rose from the dead; this is what counts. In the coming decades, evolution may well be recognized as valid and accepted by more and more believers, but this doesn't mean that Dawkins and other atheists will have "won" - because this isn't what our faith rests on. Also in the coming decades, I have no doubt that archeology and other sciences will reveal increasingly the supreme importance and historicity of the person Jesus - and this really does matter. Our faith rests 100 percent on him.

 

When I hear things like this, I often wonder just how John the Baptist would be viewed.

Bullying is a stretch. As I see it, they are not imposing anything on any one without his consent, these are simply their rules for the expo they organized. Actually, the most "American" thing to do when you don't like the way someone else is doing it, is to start your own homeschool expo with your own rules.

As to drawing unnecessary attention...I would say that we a drawing attention to the One in Whom we believe, hopefully. We are coming to a time when the wheat will be divided from the chaff, so it is likely that the differences between the two will be quite obvious.

How can you say you don't expect anyone to change what he believes when in fact you are asking that he changes what he believes or, at least, to believe whatever he would like as long as he pursues those beliefs in secret so it does not grate against the world. It just sounds...uh, cowardly rather than discretionary. Is it so much of an embarrassment to you when those have an incontrovertible faith express it boldly?

 

When even Christians bring up how unreasonable other Christians are because they happen to believe the Word of God literally, I have no doubt that evolution will continue to be accepted by more "believers," but then it comes down to which parts of the Bible are true or believable and which parts are not and we are sliding down a slippery slope there. How can one have faith in God when they only believe in the believable parts of the Bible? Where is the exercise of faith there?

Now, I don't argue about the actual mechanics of how the Lord formed the universe with other people who choose to believe differently than I do. It is a futile argument because both are based on beliefs that cannot be proven without a doubt. I simply believe that God is God and He can do it any way He desires. He could have done it in an instant. He could have done it in six days being the Ultimate Artisan with the smallest elements of matter at His command. With His patience, He could have taken thousands of years, since He was His only time keeper. I don't think that when I pass on to heaven and find out He did any other way than what I had believed that I will be disappointed.

I love science, but in this case, it tends to theorize on bits of the evidence and fit them into a model devoid of God that it has already accepted, instead of looking at all the evidence because of the holes it creates in the model. Since science lacks the absolutes that would satisfy me on this matter, I have chosen to believe in a 6-Day Creation, because that is how the Lord wanted it described in His Bible and because I believe He could have done it that way.

If I am in error, would prefer to be in error towards believing God could have even if He didn't, which I think is coming to Him like a child. A child does not have all the answers, but often will try to explain something from his limited understanding and imagination. I think God sees it as a honor even if we get it wrong because we so believe in Him that we believe He could have, just as a father is pleased his child thinks he is the strongest man in the world when he picks the child up and carries him.

 

Let me repeat something I've written before: No, God could NOT have done it any which way. We know from the law that he will not bear false witness; he will not deceive us. If he actually created the world one way but then planted evidence to the contrary, how can we believe him? Is salvation just another deception? Is he planting verses in the bible to fool us?

It's a fundamental point that God acts consistent with his personality, and that personality is described in part in the law - and more completely in the person of Christ. To say that God can do absolutely anything is to create a figment of our imagination. God is omnipotent, yes, but he is also a person and acts consistent with his personality.